Comparison of interventions for Barrett's esophagus: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a precancerous condition that has the potential to develop into esophageal cancer (EC). Currently, there is a wide range of management options available for individuals at different pathological stages in Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, there is currently a lack of knowledge regarding their comparative efficacy. To address this gap, we conducted a network meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials to examine the comparative effectiveness of all regimens. METHODS: Data extracted from eligible randomized controlled trials were utilized in a Bayesian network meta-analysis to examine the relative effectiveness of BE's treatment regimens and determine their ranking in terms of efficacy. The ranking probability for each regimen was assessed using the surfaces under cumulative ranking values. The outcomes under investigation were complete ablation of BE, neoplastic progression of BE, and complete eradication of dysplasia. RESULTS: We identified twenty-three RCT studies with a total of 1675 participants, and ten different interventions. Regarding complete ablation of non-dysplastic BE, the comparative effectiveness ranking indicated that argon plasma coagulation (APC) was the most effective regimen, with the highest SUCRA value, while surveillance and PPI/H2RA were found to be the least efficacious regimens. For complete ablation of BE with low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia, or esophageal cancer, photodynamic therapy (PDT) had the highest SUCRA value of 94.1%, indicating it as the best regimen. Additionally, for complete eradication of dysplasia, SUCRA plots showed a trend in ranking PDT as the highest with a SUCRA value of 91.2%. Finally, for neoplastic progression, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and surgery were found to perform significantly better than surveillance. The risk of bias assessment revealed that 6 studies had an overall high risk of bias. However, meta-regression with risk of bias as a covariate did not indicate any influence on the model. In terms of the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis evaluation, a high level of confidence was found for all treatment comparisons. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic surveillance alone or PPI/H2RA alone may not be sufficient for managing BE, even in cases of non-dysplastic BE. However, APC has shown excellent efficacy in treating non-dysplastic BE. For cases of BE with low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia, or esophageal cancer, PDT may be the optimal intervention as it can induce regression of BE metaplasia and prevent future progression of BE to dysplasia and EC.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) can be effective in eradicating BE and related neoplasia and has greater risk of harms and resource use than surveillance endoscopy. This clinical practice guideline aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients, conducted an evidence review, and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations regarding the use of EET in patients with BE under the following scenarios: presence of (1) high-grade dysplasia, (2) low-grade dysplasia, (3) no dysplasia, and (4) choice of stepwise endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or focal EMR plus ablation, and (5) endoscopic submucosal dissection vs EMR. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 5 recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. Based on the available evidence, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of EET in patients with BE high-grade dysplasia and conditional recommendation against EET in BE without dysplasia. The panel made a conditional recommendation in favor of EET in BE low-grade dysplasia; patients with BE low-grade dysplasia who place a higher value on the potential harms and lower value on the benefits (which are uncertain) regarding reduction of esophageal cancer mortality could reasonably select surveillance endoscopy. In patients with visible lesions, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of focal EMR plus ablation over stepwise EMR. In patients with visible neoplastic lesions undergoing resection, the use of either endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was suggested based on lesion characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the indications for EET in the management of BE and related neoplasia. Guidance is also provided regarding the considerations surrounding implementation of EET. Providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to guide future research opportunities.

Treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with a history of bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: The relationship among obesity, bariatric surgery, and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is complex, given that some bariatric procedures are thought to be associated with increased incidence of reflux and Barrett's esophagus. Previous bariatric surgery may complicate the use of the stomach as a conduit for esophagectomy. In this study, we presented our experience with patients who developed EAC after bariatric surgery and described the challenges encountered and the techniques used. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of our institutional database to identify all patients at our institution who were treated for EAC after previously undergoing bariatric surgery. RESULTS: In total, 19 patients underwent resection with curative intent for EAC after bariatric surgery, including 10 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. The median age at diagnosis of EAC was 63 years; patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy were younger (median age, 56 years). The median time from bariatric surgery to EAC was 7 years. Most patients had a body mass index (BMI) score of >30 kg/m2 at the time of diagnosis of EAC; approximately 40% had class III obesity (BMI score > 40 kg/m2). Six patients (32%) had known Barrett's esophagus before undergoing a reflux-increasing bariatric procedure. Sleeve gastrectomy patients underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit, colonic interposition, or esophagojejunostomy. Only 1 patient had an anastomotic leak (after esophagojejunostomy). CONCLUSION: Endoscopy should be required both before (for treatment selection) and after all bariatric surgical procedures. Resection of EAC after bariatric surgery requires a highly individualized approach but is safe and feasible.

Curative criteria for endoscopic treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma has been increasing rapidly in the Western world. A well-known risk factor for developing this type of tumour is reflux disease, which can cause metaplasia from the squamous cell mucosa to columnar epithelium (Barrett's Oesophagus) which can progress to dysplasia and eventually adenocarcinoma. With the rise of the incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma, research on the best way to manage this disease is of great importance and has changed treatment modalities over the last decades. The gold standard for superficial adenocarcinoma has shifted from surgical to endoscopic management when certain criteria are met. This review will discuss the different curative criteria for endoscopic treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

[Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Mucosal Neoplasms in the Oesophagus]. / Endoskopische Diagnostik und Therapie von malignen epithelialen Läsionen und ihren Vorläufern im Ösophagus.

Endoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis of oesophageal cancer and its precursor lesions. Besides this, endoscopy treatment of these precursor lesions and early oesophageal cancer has been well evaluated and established. This includes dysplastic lesions associated with Barrett's oesophagus and early adenocarcinoma, as well as early squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus. The role of endoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of these lesions is summarised.

Incidence and Prediction of Unrelated Mortality After Successful Endoscopic Eradication Therapy for Barrett's Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Follow-up (FU) strategies after endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for Barrett's neoplasia do not consider the risk of mortality from causes other than esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to evaluate this risk during long-term FU, and to assess whether the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) can predict mortality. METHODS: We included all patients with successful EET from the nationwide Barrett registry in the Netherlands. Data were merged with National Statistics for accurate mortality data. We evaluated annual mortality rates (AMRs, per 1000 person-years) and standardized mortality ratio for other-cause mortality. Performance of the CCI was evaluated by discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: We included 1154 patients with a mean age of 64 years (±9). During median 59 months (p25-p75 37-91; total 6375 person-years), 154 patients (13%) died from other causes than EAC (AMR, 24.1; 95% CI, 20.5-28.2), most commonly non-EAC cancers (n = 58), cardiovascular (n = 31), or pulmonary diseases (n = 26). Four patients died from recurrent EAC (AMR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.1-1.4). Compared with the general Dutch population, mortality was significantly increased for patients in the lowest 3 age quartiles (ie, age <71 years). Validation of CCI in our population showed good discrimination (Concordance statistic, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84) and fair calibration. CONCLUSION: The other-cause mortality risk after successful EET was more than 40 times higher (48; 95% CI, 15-99) than the risk of EAC-related mortality. Our findings reveal that younger post-EET patients exhibit a significantly reduced life expectancy when compared with the general population. Furthermore, they emphasize the strong predictive ability of CCI for long-term mortality after EET. This straightforward scoring system can inform decisions regarding personalized FU, including appropriate cessation timing. (NL7039).

Durability of radiofrequency ablation for long-segment and ultralong-segment Barrett's esophagus over 10 years.

BACKGROUND: Long-term durability data for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma in long-segment (LSBE) and ultralong-segment Barrett's esophagus (ULSBE) is lacking. This study aimed to determine 10-year cancer progression, eradication, and complication rates in LSBE and ULSBE patients treated with RFA. METHODS: Single-surgeon prospective database of patients with LSBE (≥ 3 to < 8 cm) and ULSBE (≥ 8 cm) who underwent RFA (2001-2021) were retrospectively analyzed. Ten-year cancer progression calculated with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Eradication rates, including complete remission of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM), and rates of recurrence and complications, compared between LSBE and ULSBE groups. RESULTS: Ten years after starting treatment, the cancer rate was 14.3% in 56 patients. CR-D and CR-IM rates were 87.5% and 67.9%, respectively. Relapse rates from CR-D were 1.8% and 3.6% from CR-IM. Eradication rates for dysplasia in LSBE and ULSBE patients (90.6% versus 83.3%) and IM (71.9% versus 62.5%) were not significantly different. ULSBE patients required higher mean number of ablation sessions for IM eradication (4.7 versus 3.7, p = 0.032), while complication rates including strictures (4.2% versus 6.2%), perforation (0 versus 0), and bleeding (4.2% versus 3.1%), were similar between ULSBE and LSBE patients, respectively. On multivariate analysis, shorter Barrett's segment and baseline low-grade dysplasia were associated with increased likelihood for eradication of IM and dysplasia. A total number of ablation sessions or endoscopic resections ≥ 3 was associated with reduced likelihood for eradication. CONCLUSION: RFA was durable in maintaining dysplasia and IM eradication in both LSBE and ULSBE over 10 years, and with low complication rates. IM eradication was more difficult to achieve in ULSBE. Late development of cancer occurred in 14.3%.

Antireflux Surgery Versus Antireflux Medication and Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antireflux treatment is recommended to reduce esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Antireflux surgery (fundoplication) counteracts gastroesophageal reflux of all types of carcinogenic gastric content and reduces esophageal acid exposure to a greater extent than antireflux medication (eg, proton pump inhibitors). We examined the hypothesis that antireflux surgery prevents esophageal adenocarcinoma to a larger degree than antireflux medication in patients with Barrett's esophagus. METHODS: This multinational and population-based cohort study included all patients with a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus in any of the national patient registries in Denmark (2012-2020), Finland (1987-1996 and 2010-2020), Norway (2008-2020), or Sweden (2006-2020). Patients who underwent antireflux surgery were compared with nonoperated patients using antireflux medication. The risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma was calculated using multivariable Cox regression, providing hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs adjusted for age, sex, country, calendar year, and comorbidity. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 33,939 patients with Barrett's esophagus. Of these, 542 (1.6%) had undergone antireflux surgery. During up to 32 years of follow-up, the overall HR was not decreased in patients having undergone antireflux surgery compared with nonoperated patients using antireflux medication, but rather increased (adjusted HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5). In addition, HRs did not decrease with longer follow-up, but instead increased for each follow-up category, from 1.8 (95% CI, 0.6-5.0) within 1-4 years of follow-up to 4.4 (95% CI, 1.4-13.5) after 10-32 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Barrett's esophagus who undergo antireflux surgery do not seem to have a lower risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma than those using antireflux medication.

Clinical Outcomes After Endoscopic Management of Low-Risk and High-Risk T1a Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is standard of care for T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, data on outcomes in high-risk T1a EAC are limited. We assessed and compared outcomes after EET of low-risk and high-risk T1a EAC, including intraluminal EAC recurrence, extraesophageal metastases, and overall survival. METHODS: Patients who underwent EET for T1a EAC at 3 referral Barrett's esophagus endotherapy units between 1996 and 2022 were included. Patients with submucosal invasion, positive deep margins, or metastases at initial diagnosis were excluded. High-risk T1a EAC was defined as T1a EAC with poor differentiation and/or lymphovascular invasion, with low-risk disease being defined without these features. All pathology was systematically assessed by expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Baseline and follow-up endoscopy and pathology data were abstracted. Time-to-event analyses were performed to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight patients with T1a EAC were included (high risk, n = 45; low risk, n = 143) with a median age of 70 years, and 84% were men. Groups were comparable for age, sex, Barrett's esophagus length, lesion size, and EET technique. Rates of delayed extraesophageal metastases (11.1% vs 1.4%) were significantly higher in the high-risk group ( P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the rates of intraluminal EAC recurrence ( P = 0.79) and overall survival ( P = 0.73) between the 2 groups. DISCUSSION: Patients with high-risk T1a EAC undergoing successful EET had a substantially higher rate of extraesophageal metastases compared with those with low-risk T1a EAC on long-term follow-up. These data should be factored into discussions with patients while selecting treatment approaches. Additional prospective data in this area are critical.

Advanced Cancer-A Bad Consequence of a Missed Follow-Up after ESD in Barrett's Esophagus.

Barrett's esophagus(BE)is a precursor to adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric transition. Thus, endoscopic surveillance is essential for the early diagnosis of dysplasia and neoplasm, allowing proper therapeutic. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, surveillance frequently failed. We present a case of a male, caucasian, 65 years old, patient with early adenocarcinoma in BE. Submitted an endoscopic resection, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic patient lost the follow-up endoscopic exams. Returned with a T3N1 adenocarcinoma esophagus in resection area. The present report illustrates the consequences of the failure in follow-up after submucosal resection in COVID-19 pandemic context.

DEVELOPMENT OF ADENOCARCINOMA AFTER RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION OF BARRETT'S ESOPHAGUS ASSOCIATED TO FUNDOPLICATION AND SUPPRESSION-DUODENAL DIVERSION PROCEDURE: A LESSON TO BE LEARNED.

Despite endoscopic eradication therapy being an effective and durable treatment for Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia, even after achieving initial successful eradication, these patients remain at risk of recurrence and require ongoing routine examinations. Failure of radiofrequency ablation and argon plasma coagulation is reported in 10-20% of cases.

The 2022 top 10 list of endoscopy topics in medical publishing: an annual review by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board.

Using a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2022 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals, the 10-member Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy composed a list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy during the study year. Each Editorial Board member was directed to consider 3 criteria in generating candidate lists-significance, novelty, and global impact on clinical practice-and subject matter consensus was facilitated by the Chair through electronic voting. The 10 identified areas collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic spheres: artificial intelligence, endoscopic submucosal dissection, Barrett's esophagus, interventional EUS, endoscopic resection techniques, pancreaticobiliary endoscopy, management of acute pancreatitis, endoscopic environmental sustainability, the NordICC trial, and spiral enteroscopy. Each board member was assigned a consensus topic area around which to summarize relevant important articles, thereby generating this précis of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2022.

Incidence of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma, Mortality, and Esophagectomy in Barrett's Esophagus Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Eradication Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is the preferred treatment for Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related neoplasia patients. However, the impact of EET on critical outcomes, outside of clinical trials and registry data, remains scarcely studied. We aimed to assess real-world practice patterns and clinical outcomes among BE patients undergoing EET. METHODS: TriNetX is a large research network comprising linked inpatient and outpatient electronic-health record-derived data from over 80,000,000 patients. Patients with a diagnosis of BE from 2015 to 2020 were identified and included if they underwent EET during the study period. The primary outcome was the progression to EAC after index EET. Secondary outcomes included rate of esophagectomy, and all-cause mortality. All outcomes were stratified by baseline histology. The incidence of EAC and all-cause mortality were reported in person-years and adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 4114 patients were analyzed. Distribution of baseline histology was as follows: NDBE (11.8%), LGD (21.4%), HGD (26.4%), EAC (20.8%), and unspecified (19.6%). The total incidence of EAC after index EET was 6.01 per 1000 person-years (PY) for the entire cohort with the highest rate in HGD patients (12.9/1000 PY). The incidence of all-cause mortality was 13.23 per 1000 PY with the highest rates in EAC patients (25.1 per 1000 PY). Rates of esophagectomy were < 1% for all grades of dysplasia. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide "real-world" data on critical outcomes for BE patients undergoing EET, demonstrating a low risk of incident EAC, all-cause mortality, and need for esophagectomy.

Atrial Flutter After Radiofrequency Ablation for Barrett's Esophagus: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a metaplastic change in the normal esophageal squamous epithelium and is a well-recognized precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Nowadays, focal radiofrequency ablation is a valid technique for BE treatment by inducing a superficial and focal thermic destruction of metaplastic tissues. According to the literature, the most frequent patient-related adverse events of this procedure are esophageal iatrogenic stenosis, mucosal laceration or perforation of the esophagus, chest pain, and odynophagia/dysphagia. Postoperative heart rhythm abnormalities have been reported very rarely. CASE REPORT A 74-year-old patient with HE was treated by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with the Barrx™ catheter system. He had 2 symptomatic episodes of atrial flutter in the immediate postoperative period requiring an external electrical cardioversion to induce a return to sinus cardiac rhythm. After atrial flutter ablation, 2 more radiofrequency procedures were performed, without adverse events. A laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication was carried out with complete endoscopic and histologic eradication of BE after 12-month follow-up. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of atrial flutter after esophageal RFA. Different mechanisms acting on an anatomic predisposing substrate can potentially play a role in starting atrial flutter, and include inflammation, autonomic activation, and myocardial injury. CONCLUSIONS The occurrence of this new type of adverse effect could potentially modify indications and postoperative monitoring of RFA treatment for BE. Endoscopists should know the possibility of this procedural complication in high-risk patients and they should propose alternative techniques or implement close cardiac monitoring in the postoperative period.

Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2: ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3: ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8: ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9: ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B: ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C: ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D: ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E: ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11: After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Meta-analysis of Long-term De Novo Acid Reflux-Related Outcomes Following Sleeve Gastrectomy: Evidence Against the Need for Routine Postoperative Endoscopic Surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence of long-term de novo acid reflux-related complications following sleeve gastrectomy (SG) to determine whether routine postoperative surveillance endoscopy is necessary. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, the Web of Science, and bibliographic reference lists was conducted. A proportion meta-analysis model was constructed to quantify the risk of the de novo gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), oesophagitis, and Barrett's oesophagus (BE) at least 4 years after SG. Random-effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: Thirty-two observational studies were included reporting a total of 7904 patients who underwent primary SG and were followed up for at least 4 years. The median follow-up period was 60 months (48-132). Preoperative acid-reflux symptoms existed in 19.1% ± 15.1% of the patients. The risk of development of de novo GORD, oesophagitis, and BE after SG was 24.8% (95% CI 18.6-31.0%), 27.9% (95% CI 17.7-38.1%), and 6.7% (95% CI 3.7-9.7%), respectively. The between-study heterogeneity was significant in all outcome syntheses. It was suspected that several of the included studies have not reported BE and oesophagitis because such events might not have happened in their cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term risk of de novo GORD after SG seems to be comparable with those of the general population which questions the merit of surveillance endoscopy after SG in asymptomatic patients. De novo BE and oesophagitis after SG have not been reported by most of the available studies which may lead to overestimation of the rates of both outcomes in any evidence synthesis. We recommend endoscopic surveillance for symptomatic patients only.